P. Andrew Riley
Andrew Riley focuses his practice on patent litigation before U.S. district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). His practice also includes patent counseling, licensing, opinions, and reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Mr. Riley's litigation experience includes preparing, examining, and cross-examining fact and expert witnesses at trial; conducting and defending depositions; and preparing and arguing motions. He has worked on matters involving a wide array of technologies, including medical devices, mobile phones, software, wind-turbine generators, motor and hybrid vehicles, Internet applications, semiconductors, image sensors, manufacturing machines, and pharmaceuticals.
Mr. Riley devotes a portion of his time to pro bono matters. He has represented clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Social Security Administration.
Prior to law school, Mr. Riley served four years on active duty as an officer in the U.S. Army.
- Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, 337-TA-703 (ITC). Represented Research In Motion in patent litigation involving digital camera technology in smartphones. The Commission found no violation of Section 337 by RIM.
- Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, 337-TA-726 (ITC). Represented Research In Motion in patent litigation involving camera technology in smartphones, which resulted in a favorable settlement for RIM.
- Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines, 337-TA-641 (ITC). Represented respondents Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and its subsidiaries in patent litigation against General Electric. The Commission found no violation of Section 337 by Mitsubishi.
- Certain Combination Motor and Transmission Systems and Devices Used Therein, 337-TA-561 (ITC). Represented respondent Toyota in patent litigation against Solomon Technologies that sought to exclude Toyota's hybrid vehicles from the United States. The Commission found no violation of Section 337 by Toyota.
- Netscape v. ValueClick (E.D. Va.). Represented Netscape Communications in patent litigation involving Internet technology, which resulted in a favorable settlement for Netscape.
- Medtronic Vascular v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems (N.D. Cal.). Defended Abbott Labs in patent litigation involving coronary stents, which resulted in a favorable settlement terms for Abbott.
- Represented Wyeth in Hatch-Waxman litigation in multiple district court litigations, obtaining favorable settlement terms for Wyeth.
- Represented client in successful mediation involving systems for bending and shaping metal.
- Articles editor for William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 2002-2003.
- American Bar Association (Section on Intellectual Property Law)
- American Intellectual Property Law Association
- International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association (337 Reporter, feature editor, 2012-present)